Pedro Ramos vs. Atty.

Maria Nympha Mandagan

A.C. No. 11128 April 6, 2016

(Legal Ethics; Canon 16, Code of Professional Responsibility)

Facts

Atty. Mandagan demanded three hundred thousand pesos from Ramos to be used as bail bond in the event
that his petition for bail in the latter’s criminal case is granted. Ramos’ bail was denied and Atty. Mandagan
withdrew as his counsel without returning the amount despite the demand sent by Ramos’ new counsel.

Atty. Mandagan argued that the amount was not intended for payment of bail, but as mobilization expenses.
She also alleged that she was never paid acceptance and appearance fees for legal services.

Issue

Whether respondent is guilty of violating Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

Ruling

Yes, the respondent is guilty of violating Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The respondent’s failure to make an accounting or to return the money to the client is a violation of the trust
reposed on her. As a lawyer, she should be scrupulously careful in handling money entrusted to her in her
professional capacity because the CPR exacts a high degree of fidelity and trust from members of the bar.

The defense that the amount she received was merely for mobilization expenses was not substantiated by the
records.
RAMOS V. MANDAGAN
MARIA ANGALAN, et al. vs. ATTY. LEONIDO C. DELANTE
AC No. 7181
February 6, 2009
(en banc)
FACTS:

In april 1971, herein complainants mortgaged 8.102 hectares of their property to the Eustaquio spouses in
consideration of a loan in the amount of P15,000. The Eustaqios prepared a document and sked the
complainants to sign it; but because complainants were illiterates, they affixed their marks instead. It turned out
that the document was a deed of absolute sale and not a real estate mortgage. Hence, TCT No. 9926 was
issued in the name of Navarro Eustaquio.

Complainants engaged the services of respondent Atty. Leonido Delante in November 1970 as shown in the
receipt by respondent of P12,000 representing full payment of his professional fees from the complainants.
Thereafter, an amicable settlement was entered into between complainants and the Eustaquios which
stipulated that the complainants would repurchase the lot at P30,000. But since the complainants did not have
the money, Atty. Delante advanced the money to complainants, possessed the property and gathered its
produce.

When the complainants tried to repay the money and recover the property, Atty. Delante refused.
Complainants learned that Delante transferred the title of the property to his name as evidenced by TCT No. T-
57932.

On April 30, 204, complainants filed with the RTC of Davao a complaint for (1) nullification of the deed of
absolute sale, and (2) nullification of TCT No. T-57932; and on December 28, 2005 charged respondent with
gross violation of the Code Professional Responsibilty. In April 2007, complainants filed with the Court a
motion to withdraw the complaint for disbarment and an affidavit of desistance.

ISSUES:

(1.) whether or not a motion to withdraw the complaint for disbarment and an affidavit of desistance terminates
the disbarment proceeding;

(2.) whether or not respondent committed grave violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he
bought the property of his clients without their consent and against their will.

HELD:

A motion to withdraw the complaint for disbarment and an affidavit of desistance is immaterial. Section 5, Rule
139-B of the Rules of Court states that, “No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the
desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of charges, or failure of the complainant to
prosecute the same.”

Respondent violated Canons 16 and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 16 states that
lawyers shall hold in trust all properties of their clients that may come into their possession. Respondent should
have held in trust TCT No. T-9926 and returned the property to complainants upon demand. Instead of holding
in trust the property of complainants, respondent (1) transferred the title of the property to his name, (2)
refused to return the property to complainants, and (3) referred to complainants’ charges as malicious and
untruthful.

Canon 17 states that lawyers shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them. Respondent should
have been mindful of the trust and confidence complainants reposed in him. Complainants allege that they are
illiterate and that the Spouses Eustaquio took advantage of them. Complainants engaged the services of
respondent in the hope that he would help them recover their property. Instead of protecting the interests of
complainants, respondent took advantage of complainants and transferred the title of the property to his name.

Considering the depravity of respondent’s offense, the Court finds the recommended penalty too light. Violation
of Canons 16 and 17 constitutes gross misconduct. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that a
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Court for gross
misconduct.

A person who takes the 8.102-hectare property of his illiterate clients and who is incapable of telling the truth is
unfit to be a lawyer.

The Court finds Atty. Leonido C. Delante GUILTY of violating Canons 16 and 17 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court DISBARS him from the practice of law and ORDERS that his name be
stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
Ruling:
Yes. First disbarment proceedings may be instituted by any interested person. It is of no moment that Atty.
Catalan is not the complainant in the extortion case againsr Silvosa. Second, conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude is a ground for disbarment. In a disbarment case, the Court will no longer review a final
judgment of conviction. Third, the crime for direct bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude.

Silvosa’s reprsentation of conflicting interest and his faild attempt to bribe Prosecutor Toribio merit at least the
penalty of suspension. Disbarment follows as a consequence of Silvosa’s convivtiom of the crime. His excuse
that his convivtiom was not in his capacity as a lawyer, but as a public office, is unacceptable and betrays the
unmistakable lack of integrity in his character.
Hence, Silvosa was disbarred.
LIM SANTIAGO VS SAGUCIO

EN BANC[ A.C. No. 6705, March 31, 2006 ]

RUTHIE LIM-SANTIAGO, COMPLAINANT,
VS.
ATTY. CARLOS B. SAGUCIO, RESPONDENT

Facts:

Complainant charges respondent with the following violations:

1. Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

Complainant contends that respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests. Respondent, being the
former Personnel Manager and Retained Counsel of Taggat, knew the operations of Taggat very well.
Respondent should have inhibited himself from hearing, investigating and deciding the case filed by Taggat
employees. Furthermore, complainant claims that respondent instigated the filing of the cases and even
harassed and threatened Taggat employees to accede and sign an affidavit to support the complaint.

2. Engaging in the private practice of law while working as a government prosecutor

Complainant also contends that respondent is guilty of engaging in the private practice of law while working as
a government prosecutor. Complainant presented evidence to prove that respondent received P10,000 as
retainer’s fee for the months of January and February 1995, another P10,000 for the months of April and May
1995, and P5,000 for the month of April 1996.

Issue:

whether or not being a former lawyer of Taggat conflicts with respondent’s role as Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor

Whether or not respondent is engaged in the practice of law

Ruling:

1. The Court exonerates respondent from the charge of violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (“Code”). However, the Court finds respondent liable for violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility against unlawful conduct. Respondent committed unlawful conduct when
he violated Section 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees or
Republic Act No. 6713 (“RA 6713”).

Canon 6 provides that the Code “shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official
duties.” A government lawyer is thus bound by the prohibition “not [to] represent conflicting interests.”
However, this rule is subject to certain limitations. The prohibition to represent conflicting interests does not
apply when no conflict of interest exists, when a written consent of all concerned is given after a full disclosure
of the facts or when no true attorney-client relationship exists. Moreover, considering the serious consequence
of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify
the imposition of the administrative penalty.

Respondent is also mandated under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 not to engage in “unlawful x x x conduct.” Unlawful
conduct includes violation of the statutory prohibition on a government employee to “engage in the private
practice of [his] profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not
conflict or tend to conflict with [his] official functions.”

2. “Private practice of law” contemplates a succession of acts of the same nature habitually or customarily
holding one’s self to the public as a lawyer.

Respondent argues that he only rendered consultancy services to Taggat intermittently and he was not a
retained counsel of Taggat from 1995 to 1996 as alleged. This argument is without merit because the law does
not distinguish between consultancy services and retainer agreement. For as long as respondent performed
acts that are usually rendered by lawyers with the use of their legal knowledge, the same falls within the ambit
of the term “practice of law.”